# Insight Critique

> Advisory review workflow. Reviews the last plan, code, architecture, or UI output and returns a structured report: Summary, Strengths, Risks, Fixes. Use when the user runs /critique, asks to "review this", "critique this", or "what's wrong with this", or wants focused feedback on a specific output. Also trigger as a quality gate before /execute. Advisory only — never blocks unless a kernel-prime violation is present. For multi-POV adversarial stress-testing with personas, use /insight-adversarial instead.

- Skill: `allemaar/insight-critique` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 2 files)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add allemaar/insight-critique`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/allemaar/insight-critique/raw
- Safety review: pending
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: Docs & Writing
- Author: allemaar (https://skillmd.com/u/allemaar)
- Updated: 2026-09-17
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/allemaar/insight-critique

---


# /critique

Advisory review of the last plan, code, architecture, or UI output. Runs four analysis passes and emits a structured report. Never blocks — advisory only.

> **Structured execution spec:** [`protocol.yon`](protocol.yon). Read it for the canonical rules and step sequence; this file is explanation. The two must stay in sync — if you edit one, update the other and refresh the `@STAMP` date.

> **Caller Options.** Before executing, run the Caller Options protocol (`caller-options/SKILL.md`): triage this invocation for material optionality across the venues and modes declared in front-matter; if one path clearly dominates, proceed silently; otherwise surface the options to the caller. A resolved-invocation marker means COP already ran — execute the fixed combination directly, do not re-enter COP.

## Phase 1 — Classify

Identify what is being critiqued. Pick exactly one: `Code`, `Plan`, `Architecture`, `UI`. If the subject is ambiguous, ask for clarification before proceeding.

## Phase 2 — Analysis

Run all four passes. Passes 1–3 are independent. Pass 4 depends on Risks.

1. **Summary** — what is this? State purpose, scope, and approach concisely.
2. **Strengths** — what is well-designed, sound, or admirable? Be specific. Do not pad.
3. **Risks** — what is fragile, dangerous, underspecified, or likely to fail? Rank by severity: **High** / **Medium** / **Low**.
4. **Fixes** — for each risk, propose a concrete actionable change. Distinguish **must-fix** from **nice-to-fix**.

## Phase 3 — Render Report

Output a structured report with four labeled sections: Summary, Strengths, Risks, Fixes. Then set a verdict:

- ✅ **Approved** — all risks are Low or cosmetic
- ⚠️ **Conditional** — risks present but fixable; apply fixes then proceed to `/plan-execute`
- 🚫 **Not Approved** — High risks present; `/plan-create` or a redesign is required

## Constraints

- Advisory only. Never block or halt the user's work unless a kernel-prime violation is detected.
- Never mark Approved when any risk is rated Medium or above.
- Do not pad Strengths to soften the critique. If there are few strengths, say so.

## Downstream

Suggest the natural next command — these mirror the `next-skills:` front-matter:

- `/insight-adversarial` — stress-test the critiqued work from multiple POVs
- `/plan-create` — if the verdict is 🚫 Not Approved and a redesign is needed
- `/plan-execute` — apply the targeted fixes / proceed if the verdict is ✅ Approved or ⚠️ Conditional

> **Human output.** This skill's handler-facing output obeys the human-output
> contract (`human-output/SKILL.md`).

> **Next skills.** On completion, run the Next Skills protocol (`next-skills/SKILL.md`): surface the `next-skills` recommendations from front-matter for the caller to pick. Offer only — never auto-invoke.

> **Self-improvement.** On completion, run the Self-Improvement Protocol (`self-improve/SKILL.md`): if this run surfaced a concrete, blocking-or-recurring weakness in this skill, propose a specific fix for the handler to approve. Conservative — silent otherwise. Never auto-apply.